Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Clause 47 - Interim authority notice following death etc. of licence holder

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 276, in
clause 47, page 27, line 19, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 277, in 
clause 47, page 27, line 42, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
 Amendment No. 278, in 
clause 47, page 28, line 17, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
 Amendment No. 279, in 
clause 47, page 28, line 18, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
 Amendment No. 280, in 
clause 47, page 28, line 23, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
 Amendment No. 281, in 
clause 48, page 28, line 37, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
 Amendment No. 282, in 
clause 48, page 28, line 43, leave out '48' and insert '96'.
 Amendment No. 283, in 
clause 48, page 29, line 1, after 'it', insert 'within 14 days'.
 Amendment No. 285, in 
clause 50, page 30, line 6, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
 There is only one group of amendments to the clause. It is entirely up to the judgment of members of the Committee, but I am prepared to allow a fairly wide-ranging debate to take place along the usual terms. If that happens, there will be no stand part debate. I leave that for hon. Members to determine for themselves.

Malcolm Moss: Thank you, Mr. Gale. Welcome back to the Chair after what, I hope, was a pleasant Easter break. The amendments are probing amendments. They deal with various time scales to test the Government's thinking behind the length of the periods set out in the Bill. They relate to clause 47, which deals with the interim authority notice following the death et cetera of a licence holder as defined by ''death, incapacity''—I suppose that that is mental incapacity—
''or insolvency of the holder''
 under subsection (1)(a). 
 Such events are fairly traumatic and, one way or another, would throw the business into panic. The Bill allows seven days after such an event for the notice to be submitted. We argue that that period is probably on the tight side, in light of the circumstances that gave 
 rise to such events. A10-day period would give an extra three days, with perhaps a weekend in between, to allow people to collect their thoughts and take stock of the situation, for example, when a person has died or been admitted to hospital. It would give people time to adjust to such matters and to make the necessary arrangements as well as thinking about the serving of an interim notice. We want to elicit from the Government their reasons for wanting a period of seven days after a fairly traumatic event has happened. 
 Amendment No. 282 would increase the time between the chief officer of police receiving a copy of the interim authority notice and notifying the relevant licensing authority that he or she was duly satisfied. It would change the time from 48 hours to 96. We want to test why 48 hours is deemed to be appropriate. At present, our police force says that it is overworked and under great pressure. As we know, our constabularies suffer problems of one sort or another and to state, under the Bill, that they should react within 48 hours of receiving a notice seems a little on the tight side. 
 Let us consider the Easter break, when there was a holiday period of four days: Good Friday, the weekend and Easter Monday. Obviously, police officers do not down tools for the whole Easter period, but there would probably be fewer of them on duty and to say that they had to respond within 48 hours in such a holiday period would put undue and unreasonable pressure on them. Have the Government taken such matters into account? 
 Amendment No. 283 would impose a time limit of 14 days for a hearing to take place by a local authority under clause 48(3)(a), which states that the authority must hold a hearing to consider the notice 
''unless the authority, the relevant person and the chief officer of police agree that a hearing is unnecessary''.
 Time scales are imposed on everyone else, such as the person who must submit the interim authority notice and the police, but nothing in the Bill requires the local authority to respond within a particular time. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me otherwise. Everyone else seems to be held to a time limit and the local authority should be, too. 
 The situation could be fairly tricky. The business may be in a period of hiatus and there may be questions about how it should continue, who would take over, and so forth. It seems unreasonable that the Bill provides no time limit within which the local authority should respond and hear the police objection. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether, in the interests of a speedy transition, it is necessary to impose a time limit within which a local authority should hold a hearing. 
 If the police object to an interim notice, a cloud of suspicion may hang over the head of the individual who wishes to take over and it is important that that be removed quickly and reasonably, for the success of the business.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) for the spirit in which he moved the amendment. He was correct to frame it as he did. Such incidents are often traumatic for the family of the persons concerned and for
 employees of the establishments. The system set out in the Bill is designed to benefit principally those sections of the industry that lease property to tenants, although the range of circumstances in which such arrangements might apply goes wider than that.
 If a premises licence has lapsed due to the events set out in clause 47—the death, incapacity or insolvency of the licence holder—it may be reinstated so that its authorisation may be transferred to another individual, organisation, or an interim authority obtained, provided that the application is made within seven days of the lapse of the licence. That is a major improvement on the current system, whereby a full hearing before the licensing justices would be required for an interim authority. The time limit is sensible and has been set to minimise the impact of the unfortunate events on those who work at the premises. When the licence lapses, those employed at the premises will effectively be out of a job until the licence is reinstated by the means provided for in the clause. 
 The seven-day limit was chosen to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for a bereaved relative, for example, to make an application and the interests of those who earn a living at the premises. Nevertheless, I understand fully what the hon. Gentleman said about the possible state of mind of the relatives at such a time. It is essential that the period of time is kept to a minimum, because the authorisation would essentially have gone with the unfortunate events leading to the lapse of the licence and any steps to put life back into the authorisation should be taken without delay. If there is a longer delay before the premises could again do business, much hardship may be caused to employees who, through no fault of their own, could find themselves unable to earn an income. There is likely to be some uncertainty for employees, even with a period of seven days. There would, however, be less uncertainty under the clause as it stands than with the extended limit proposed in the amendment. 
 I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to impose such privations on employees, some of whom may be at the lower end of the income spectrum of the licensed trade.

Malcolm Moss: For clarification, is the Minister saying that as soon as a licence holder dies, for example, the business at the premises involved cannot carry on until the interim notice is filed and accepted? Does the business effectively close down on the death of the licence holder?

Kim Howells: Yes, essentially that is what happens. Once the event has occurred, the permission is gone. That is why we have to act with a little more haste than that which might be allowed by the amendments.
 Amendment No. 280 would extend the interim authority period—that is, the period after which the licence again lapses—from two months to three months. I understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that such an extension might benefit the industry. I remind him that clause 47 also provides 
 that if a relevant transfer application is made before the end of the interim authority period—that sometimes happens when people are very ill or if it is thought that something traumatic will occur—the transfer of the licence to the applicant will have immediate interim effect, pending the determination of that application. The provisions in the Bill that relate to the reinstatement of licences are designed to allow businesses to react to unfortunate circumstances and to keep businesses in being pending the taking of long-term commercial decisions. 
 Two months is plenty of time for such an application to be made and I do not think that there is any need to extend the interim authority period. Two months is, of course, considerably longer than the 28 days given under current legislation for interim authority notices to be granted.

Malcolm Moss: Is the Minister telling us that he, or his Department, has received representations from the industry to say that the 28 days allowed under law is insufficient? Did industry ask for that period to be doubled, or did it ask for three months?

Kim Howells: As I understand it—we have had extensive consultation with the industry on the matter—we have had no objections to the period of a month. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been speaking to other parts of the industry and those discussions are what lie behind his amendments. I accept that, but I can only give him that answer.
 Amendment No. 283 would require that, if the chief officer of police told the licensing authority that he was satisfied that the interim authority notice should be cancelled, to prevent the crime prevention objective from being undermined, the licensing authority would be required to hold a hearing within 14 days. That is unless the authority, the relevant person, and the police agree that a hearing is unnecessary. I presume that the amendment was tabled because hon. Members are concerned that a hearing could be put off indefinitely—indeed, I think that that is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making—and that the police notice would therefore be ineffective. I agree entirely that that would be an unacceptable state of affairs and I assure hon. Members that the Secretary of State will use her powers under clause 180 to make regulations relating to the procedures for hearings, and that we will put a limit on the time that can be taken for hearings on interim authority notices following police objections. 
 With those undertakings, I hope that hon. Members are reassured and feel able to withdraw the amendment and that they will not press the other probing amendments grouped with it.

Mark Field: I have consulted with my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and wonder what would happen in an insolvency situation. Will the Minister say a few words about how the system would operate if a company were going bust, or if a person was involved in a receivership or went bankrupt? Clearly, in a corporate liquidation, an administrator might be appointed, and one of their most important duties
 would be to maintain the business as a going concern. Although we appreciate that there is a distinction between a business and a licence that is in personal hands there are complications, particularly in relation to strict time limits. Has the Minister anything to say on how this would operate in practical terms?

Kim Howells: There are strict regulations that deal with the insolvency of any commercial company. In this case, there are ramifications that may not exist for other companies: some of them are included in the principal objectives of the Bill and, because they involve alcohol and the possibility of a house being an unruly place or public disorder taking place as a direct consequence of the sale of alcohol, these procedures would come into play specifically in relation to licensed premises. This deals with licensed premises rather than generally with insolvency law.

Andrew Turner: I was interested to hear the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on that matter. We are talking once again at the extreme end of things if we talk only about premises on which alcohol is sold. These licences cover a whole range of events, including morris dancing in pub car parks—or, indeed, in school car parks, when no alcohol is for sale. I am concerned about whether the lapse of a licence on the insolvency of an individual licence holder would render it impossible, until the interim authority is given, for the activity to continue, even if it were at the lowest end of the scale: I think that that was the purpose of my hon. Friend's intervention.
 There is another question, which relates to death. I appreciate that that cannot necessarily be planned. [Interruption.] It may be planned in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), but it is not usually planned in mine. People make a range of arrangements in the event of death, or mental incapacity, including the use of the enduring powers of attorney that are mentioned in clause 27(1). Has the Minister explored alternative arrangements to this complex one of an interim authority having to be procured during which period the business cannot operate? In almost any other area of business one would expect the business to continue to operate. Is the business which is licensed in every case of such extreme danger to the public that it is necessary for it to cease to function? 
 The Minister pointed out that people actually lose their jobs on the death of a licensee. I would have thought that that was something that we would wish to protect them against altogether, rather than merely for as short a period as possible. I appreciate why the Minister is unhappy with the amendments to extend the period from seven to 10 days, but I would have thought that we could find a way to protect altogether the jobs of those who work for, for example, a publican, or of those who put on dances or events of a similar nature. Has the Minister explored alternatives? If so, what are the conclusions of those explorations—what are the alternatives and why has he rejected them?

Kim Howells: As far as I am aware, I have not rejected anything at the moment. I intended to answer
 a question that was raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. It was a specific question and I did not know the answer at the time, but I know it now. The Interpretation Act 1978 will apply to the Bill and deals with calculations of time periods which would allow for public holidays. Regulations will also deal with time limits for the licensing authority's response. I was indeed a little perplexed about what would have happened if, on the Friday before the Easter weekend, a traumatic event had occurred.
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked me about insolvency. It is true that insolvency would lead to the lapse of a premises licence. There is no hierarchy of activity; activity is either licensable or not, and that is a problem. However, an administrator can apply for an interim authority notice. The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of problem, as the speed of the process is important.

Malcolm Moss: On the question about insolvency from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, it is obviously in the interests of a business, or the person who wishes to take over a business, to get the interim notice through as quickly as possible to avoid delay. The pressure is therefore on the individual. Why, then, is there a limit of seven days? Why would the state or the Government want to set a time limit on the speed of operations? It is not in the interests of the state whether the business is up and running in one day or 10 days, so why, in reversing my earlier argument, has a limit of seven days been imposed at all?

Kim Howells: I have tried to explain that we want to limit as far as possible the period of uncertainty in an industry that employs a large number of people in this country. The hon. Gentleman might think that seven days is an arbitrary figure, and that it could be 10 or 14 days. I have tried to argue—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight argued the same—that from the views that we have heard from the industry, seven days creates a sensible balance. Given the other guarantees that I have tried to make clear to hon. Members, that period is for the business in question to seek an interim authority and reassemble itself.

Malcolm Moss: So, if that business fails within the seven-day period to submit an application for the interim notice, what happens? How does the business go about resurrecting itself after those seven days?

Kim Howells: The business would have to apply for a new licence and follow procedures. The interim authority arrangement gives that business the opportunity of some continuity, and it does not involve a long application—at least, we assume that it would not. I want to answer the question about what would happen if there were a death, which was put by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—I am intrigued by the possibility that deaths can be arranged in the Isle of Wight.

Andrew Turner: Perhaps in North Durham.

Kim Howells: Or in North Durham.
 The authority of the licence is personal to the holder, so if the holder dies, or becomes incapable through mental incapacity or insolvency, no authority 
 exists to carry on business activities. However, interim authorities have immediate effect, which is the point that I have been trying to make to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. The fact that they have immediate effect is beneficial; it will be good for the business and the employers.

Andrew Turner: Can the Minister tell me whether an interim authority can be applied for, or at least prepared for, in advance of death?

Kim Howells: Not as far as I know. I think that the traumatic event must first take place. However, as with any other area of business, if things appear to be drifting, an astute manager or associates will make the types of preparation at which the hon. Gentleman is hinting.

Mark Hoban: I want to ask about the process relating to insolvency. When a business goes into receivership, there is often a period during which the administrator tries to sell it. Would the administrator be required at any time to have a personal licence to continue the trade of the pub, night club or whatever, until the point at which he sells the business to another purchaser?

Kim Howells: As I said, the administrator can apply for an interim authority notice, which gives him the right to continue the business. As the hon. Gentleman says, the licence essentially gives the administrator the opportunity to say, ''Look, here we have a going concern and it should continue.'' That sometimes happens. Recently, I was talking to members of the industry about such situations and they were most concerned that there should be the minimum of interruption to the business's operations. That is why we are sticking with seven days, rather than changing the figure to 10 or anything else. Seven is the right balance.
 I should like to nuance something that I said to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight earlier: if there is mental incapacity, there is nothing to prevent the licence from being transferred, whether that had been arranged or not, even though the person has not died.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanations and I am generally satisfied by the arguments that he has put for the Government's case for the Bill. However, there is one exception, which relates to the local authority responding within a time scale by holding a hearing of objections that have been raised by the chief officer of police. The Minister sought to assure us that that would be dealt with by the Secretary of State under clause 180 and by regulations pertaining to the giving of hearings. However, clause 180 does not refer to a time scale, so we are left with a promise from the Minister that the situation will be dealt with at some unknown time.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have always been sceptical about not tackling such issues in the Bill. However, I give him the reassurance that we need that flexibility in this case because if regulations that are introduced are seen not to work, we ought to be able to change them quickly so that they respond to
 the needs of industry and employees and the licence holder if it is a small business.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister give us a steer as to his thinking? Does he think that a time scale of 14 days is appropriate or acceptable? I understand that he wants to build in flexibility, but there should be some definitive time scale within which the hearing takes place. Will he share with us any thoughts that he has had up to now about the appropriate time scale?

Kim Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not good at sharing confidential information with the Committee, but I can tell him that he is in the right area. We have to think about the job that the local authority and the applicant will have in marshalling their cases.

Malcolm Moss: Given that we will not reach clause 180 until our last or last but one sitting on 20 May, there is a lot of time between now and then for the Minister to hold any necessary meetings. At least when we reach that clause, he will then be able to give us the assurance that he has honed his thinking. We are not asking the Minister for trade secrets, we are simply asking him to put some flesh on the bones of the promise he made to the Committee. I am happy to withdraw the amendments, but when we get to clause 180 we will focus on the assurances that the Minister has given us. We hope that some serious thinking happens before then, so we know where we stand before the Bill leaves Committee.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 46, in 
clause 47, page 27, line 31, at end insert 'or'.
 No. 47, in 
clause 47, page 27, line 33, leave out 'or'.
 No. 14, in 
clause 47, page 27, line 34, leave out paragraph (d).—[Dr. Howells.]
 Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Supplementary provision about interim authority notices

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 284, in
clause 49, page 29, line 31, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 290, in 
clause 56, page 33, line 29, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Malcolm Moss: These probing amendments deal with the failure to comply with certain sections and subsections and with the appropriate level of fines that could be levied. I want to ascertain why the Government think it is such a serious, heinous offence not to comply with the provision of the interim authority notice. If an individual does not comply, they may under subsection (6) be subject to a penalty fine not exceeding level 3—a sum of £1,000. That is a heavy-
 handed, draconian penalty for what may be an error or oversight.
 We are dealing with interim authority notices that would be issued when people may be focused on other things. Traumatic times may follow after someone has died or gone into hospital, or if a business has gone into receivership, during which it may be fairly easy to overlook certain matters. Nevertheless, the Government are saying that if someone is a naughty boy and does not comply they could be fined up to £1,000. That is somewhat over the top and rather draconian. 
 Amendment No. 290 refers to clause 56 and a fine of level 2—some £500—which is also a little too heavy. We wish to ascertain why the Government believe that certain omissions, such as failing to submit notices or provide information, are so terrible that fines of that order must be implemented.

Kim Howells: Clause 49 makes supplementary provision on interim authority notices; subsection (4) provides that a person becoming a holder of a premises licence by virtue of an interim authority notice
''must (unless he is the designated premises supervisor) forthwith notify the supervisor . . . of the interim authority notice.''
 Subsection (5) provides that it is an offence, 
''without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (4)''—
 I emphasise that for the hon. Gentleman. Subsection (6) provides that 
''A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale'',
 which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. 
 Amendment No. 284 would remove the offence of failing to notify the designated premises supervisor of an interim authority notice. It is anticipated that that person would, in practice, be responsible on a day-to-day basis for what goes on at a premises on behalf of the holder of the premises licence, especially for the sale of alcohol. If the licence in question has lapsed, the authority for carrying on with the sale of alcohol or any other licensable activity on the premises no longer exists. Those licensable activities may not be carried on again until an appropriate authority—in this case, an interim authority notice—is in place. Such a notice will, for want of a better word, revive the licence in the same form that it took immediately before its lapse. It will specify the designated premises supervisor, and will allow the continuation of the licensable activities. 
 It is vital that the supervisor is made aware of that fact, particularly as he needs to know the identity of the licence holder, just as he does when a licence has been transferred, as well as the fact that he or she is susceptible to committing certain offences on licensed premises. Of course, there is a strong vested interest in the removal of a potential offence, but such a removal would simply undermine the importance that the Bill attaches to the specification of the designated premises supervisor, the need for transparency and the certainty attaching to those involved in the licensing regime. 
 The amendment would remove a requirement on businesses that has been put in place not only because that requirement is important, as I have said, but out of regard for fairness. The Bill ensures that a designated premises supervisor will know who is responsible for the premises licence, and there can be no good reason why there should not be a similar requirement on the business. The premises supervisor will have certain duties and obligations by virtue of his or her position in an organisation. In order to carry out those responsibilities properly, he or she will need to be familiar with the details of the premises licence, and the name of the person or company holding that licence, or given an interim authority notice, is an important detail. It is therefore only right that he or she be told when the person holding the premises licence—or in this case an interim authority notice—has changed. Because that is important, we need to ensure that the requirement can be enforced with appropriate penalties. 
 Clause 56 provides that if a licensing authority makes a determination or receives a notice in relation to a premises licence, or if the licence lapses or an appeal against a decision made under part 3 is determined, the authority must make any appropriate amendments to the licence and, if necessary, issue a new summary. Subsection (2) provides that if the authority is not in possession of a licence or the appropriate part of it, it may require the holder of the licence to produce it or the appropriate part of it within 14 days. Subsection (3) provides that a person commits and offence if he fails to comply with such a request, and subsection (4) says that a person guilty of that offence is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. 
 Amendment No. 290 would remove the offence of failing to produce the licence, or the appropriate part of it, for the authority within 14 days to allow it to be updated. It is important to all of those involved in the licensing system, including the police, the licensee, and the licensing authority, that premises licences be kept up to date, so that any information obtained from them is accurate. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that the licensing authority should be able to request licences, or parts of them, when they need to be updated, and that it should be an offence not to comply with such a request.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister has moved on to clause 56 and amendment No. 290 to it. Subsection (2) of that clause says that
''Where a licensing authority is not in possession of the licence (or the appropriate part of the licence)'',
 the person who has taken over the interim authority notice must, under penalty, provide the licence. However, the local authority will not have to pay a penalty for not having a copy of the licence. I can understand that the person taking over might not have the original licence, but surely the local authority will have a copy of the licence in its records. It could therefore see what was written on the licence, and the licence could be amended accordingly. 
 I fail to understand why there is a penalty if someone who has just taken over in special circumstances does not comply with that provision 
 of the licence. He may not know where to find it. The local authority should have a copy, yet the Bill does not say that the local authority is responsible.

Kim Howells: That is a good point, and I assure the Committee that for the vast majority of premises, such requests are not likely to be frequent. As the hon. Gentleman says, in many instances the licensing authority will already have the licence, or the appropriate part of it, when an update needs to be made. For instance, an application for the variation of the designated premises supervisor must be accompanied by the licence or the appropriate part of it, and no additional request will be needed. When those requests are made, the Bill allows 14 days for compliance before any offence is committed. That seems reasonable to me, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: Again, having listened to the Minister, I am more puzzled than I was before he started. That might be my fault, rather than his.
 I shall illustrate some of the circumstances that may arise on the death of the holder of a premises licence, and I want the Minister to tell me whether he thinks that it is just that the person who serves the notice should be prosecutable under subsection (5). [Interruption.] I did not hear what the Minister said.

Kim Howells: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by ''the person who serves the notice''.

Andrew Turner: I mean the holder—the person who is seeking to obtain the interim authority.
 Someone who lived in Shanklin might have a distant uncle in North Durham who ran a pub. If that uncle had no closer relatives and he were to die, the person who lived in Shanklin might apply for the interim authority for the pub, as they wished to ensure that the business continued; they might inherit it, so it might be in their interests to ensure that it was maintained in good condition, and they might be concerned about some of the staff of the pub, whom they might have met 15 years before when they last visited North Durham—not a journey that one frequently makes from the Isle of Wight.

Mark Hoban: It could be in Fareham.

Andrew Turner: It might indeed be in Fareham; that is not a journey that one frequently makes from the Isle of Wight, either.
 The person from Shanklin would apply for the interim authority, and would then face the puzzle of finding out who held the personal licence. There might be no documentation; the business might have been conducted in less than perfect civil service style—as many businesses are. Therefore, it might be difficult for them to discover who held the personal licence that authorised the business to continue. If they knew sufficient about the law, they might wish to install a personal licensee of their own, but they would not be the owner of the premises at this stage because the estate had not been sorted out. 
 That person might not even know whether the holder of the personal licence in respect of those premises had applied for an interim authority, because clause 47(2) merely states that someone who 
''has a prescribed interest in the premises''
 may serve the interim authority notice. Therefore, it is possible that two people with conflicting interests could serve that notice—except that clause 47(4) states: 
''Only one interim authority notice may be given''.
 Who or what is to say who should give that notice? Is it regulations, or the law of inheritance, or the Secretary of State, or the person who gets the notice in first? I am becoming increasingly puzzled as to how—in practical rather than theoretical terms—it can be just that the person who has served the interim notice should be liable to prosecution. 
 I also wish the Minister to address the use of the words ''without reasonable excuse'' because it is my understanding that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it, yet a pub may well be inherited by someone who has no experience of conducting a licensed trade. Can the Minister clarify what would happen if two people attempted to serve the interim notice? Who is going to prescribe the ''prescribed interest''? I see nothing in clauses 54 or 55 that is meant to restrict the power of the Secretary of State—or anyone else—to do the prescribing under clause 47(2).

Kim Howells: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's scenario, in which the Secretary of State is the person who applies for an interim authority notice for the Dog and Duck. Such situations are flights of fancy. They do not occur. A company running a chain of about 7,000 premises told us that it expected to use interim authority notices about four times a year. The requirements are therefore not likely to be onerous. Notices are not required frequently, but when they are required they can cause difficulties, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire pointed out, especially for small businesses. That is why we are trying to make the requirement clear.
 As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight knows, because he has gone through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb, the licence must be kept by the licence holder at the premises for other purposes—for enforcement. Enforcement officers need to know what licensable activities are authorised by the licence, and whether any conditions are attached to them. A copy of the licence must be made available at the licensed premises. This is not rocket science. Level 3, at which the fine is set, means up to £1,000, and on conviction it will be for the courts to decide, on the individual merits of each case, the appropriate level of fine. Clause 190 sets out a definition of ''prescribed''; it means ''prescribed by regulations'', which is clear enough. 
 As for two people applying for an interim authority notice, only one such notice may be issued, and I hope that it helps the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to learn that it will be issued to the first applicant. On that note, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Andrew Turner: The Minister says that the interim authority notice will be issued to the first person who applies for it, but clause 47(4) states:
''Only one interim authority notice may be given'',
 and says that notice is given by the person who has the prescribed interest. If there are two people with a prescribed interest, they may both give the notice despite the content of subsection (4)—or am I missing something?

Kim Howells: Yes; I have tried to make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The licensing authority will issue only one interim authority notice, which will be issued to the first applicant—if it considers them a proper person to receive it.

Malcolm Moss: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say, and he has made a reasonable fist of explaining the words in the Bill. I am still puzzled however, particularly by clause 49, including subsections (5) and (6), to which amendment No. 284 refers. Clause 49(4) states:
''Where a person becomes the holder of a premises licence by virtue of section 47, he must (unless he is the designated premises supervisor under the licence) forthwith notify the supervisor (if any) of the interim authority notice.''
 Here we have someone who has applied for the notice and has been successful in obtaining it. Under clause 47(2)(a) or (b) however, that person either 
''has a prescribed interest in the premises concerned, or . . . is connected to the person who held the premises licence''.
 Here we have a business, and somebody dies. That business would have had a designated premises licence supervisor. That may have been the person who died, but it is more likely to have been someone else. In the case of a business that collapses following the death or whatever of the licence holder, there would be a requirement to apply for an interim notice. A time scale would be given, so the onus would be to move such matters forward quickly. At that stage, the successful applicant for the interim notice would be known by the designated premises supervisor. After all, that person was in the business and had been running it alongside the premises licence holder for some time. Why does the Bill propose that the person who takes over the interim notice should be fined £1,000 for not telling the DPS? I should have thought that they would be known to each other.

Kim Howells: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have just quoted an example of a pub chain with 7,000 premises, which would use interim authority notices only about four times a year. I know that we live in a democracy—indeed, a meritocracy in some cases—but someone working in a pub would not necessarily know someone as famous as Mr. Ted Tuppen. Such a person may not even know the board of directors that would be applying for the interim notice, so it is important that he be kept in the picture about what is happening with the premises. Otherwise, that person could be found guilty of selling alcohol when he has no right to do so. Surely that is an important way of preventing people from committing crimes.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but surely the designated premises supervisor falls when the premises licence changes. If the premises licence holder has died—a situation that is covered by clause 47—and someone else applies for the interim notice, a designated premises supervisor has to be reappointed.

Kim Howells: No.

Malcolm Moss: A designated premises supervisor will have to be reappointed. Earlier we covered the fact that there must be a DPS, and the Bill proposes a heavy fine in that respect. It is self-evident that people will be known to each other. If a big chain is involved, it is obvious that the chain itself will apply for a notice and the transition will be almost seamless. I fail to see why a heavy fine is proposed.

Andrew Turner: I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's argument. I am not clear whether a premises licence has to be held by an individual or a body corporate. If it were held by a body corporate, although such a body could die through insolvency, it is not likely to die by any other means, so it is unlikely that the body corporate would need to serve an interim authority notice—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should say to ''give'' an interim authority notice; I should use the same term as is used in clause 47. When does the example of a body corporate fit in? Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me.

Malcolm Moss: It is feasible that the body corporate that owns the business and premises will ensure that the premises licence is held by the individual who runs the business. That is not a problem. When discussing clause 47, we debated what happens when a person who holds such a licence dies, enters a mental institution or becomes insolvent. That triggers off the requirement that either the interim notice be applied for, or the business must collapse, and at some stage in the future someone will reapply for the licence and start afresh. Given such circumstances, it is almost impossible that a person working in the pub would not know who had taken over under an interim notice. If the designated premises supervisor fell, in legal terms, when the licence holder died, a new supervisor would have to be reappointed by the new holder of the licence under the interim authority. It seems unreasonable to charge someone £1,000 for failure to tell the person what has happened. However, we have had a long debate on the matter now. I may return to it on Report, but for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Application for a review of premises licence

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 225, in
clause 51, page 30, line 21, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the chief officer of police for the police area in which any premises are situated must apply for a review of the premises licence for those premises if he is aware that there is being, or had been, carried on at those premises the sale, letting for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, 
films, broadcasts or cable programmes in circumstances which amount to an infringement of copyright for the purposes of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48). 
 (1B) In subsection (1A) ''sound recordings'', ''films'', ''broadcasts'' and ''cable programmes'' have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48) (copyright).'.
 The amendment is intended to protect the copyright laws and all those who have an interest in maintaining the proper and lawful methods of acquiring copyright material. Those who pirate music or films, or unlawfully access signals, harm the industries and the businesses that have lawfully gained the permission of the rights holders. The amendment would give the police extra powers to enforce the review of a licence if they knew that a breach of copyright had taken place. It would also further protect the personal licence holder and the designated premises supervisor by guiding them to obtain the necessary and proper permission for the use of copyright material, thereby avoiding potential prosecution. 
 The funds gained from producing and distributing pirated material often finance the further production of illegal material, and may fund other criminal activity. Those who allow pirated material to be used on their premises fail to understand the consequences and the seriousness of thieving intellectual property rights and the harm that that causes for their business, the right owners and the state, through lost tax revenues. Copyright theft is already a massive problem and we should be seeking to prevent it through legislation, such as the Bill, which gives us the opportunity to address the relevant issues. The amendment would remove the temptation to use pirated materials, and would make clear the consequences of such actions. Although the Opposition seek in principle to support a deregulatory Bill, the amendment is needed to close any gaps and to protect businesses in an industry that is suffering from a growing problem. 
 The amendment further seeks to raise the awareness of the public and licence holders of the seriousness of intellectual property theft, its effects on the economy and the consequences of such actions. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 may no longer be sufficient to tackle a problem that is increasing throughout the world. 
 Many interested parties have a vested interest in protecting their rights under copyright laws, and in a Bill that could have a massive impact on the problems they are already facing, the Government must recognise those.

Kim Howells: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter; he knows that I feel strongly about the threat to our economy from IPR theft. This is an important issue. Our economy depends a great deal on creative industries, and the stealing of rights throughout the world is a serious matter. For all that, I cannot accept the amendment.
 The amendment would make it compulsory for the chief officer of police to apply for the review of a premises licence in any instance where the sale, letting 
 for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes infringed copyright under the 1988 Act. The Bill contains no provision to compel interested parties or responsible authorities, such as the police, to apply for a review if an offence is committed on premises. The Bill rightly provides discretion for those authorities to decide for themselves when and in what circumstances to apply for a review. 
 I agree with the hon. Gentleman's description of the situation, and he has done us a service in bringing it to the attention of hon. Members. This is a serious crime. However, it would make no sense to remove the discretion to take the action that I have just mentioned. It would make even less sense if the police were compelled to apply for a review following an infringement of the 1988 Act when they are not compelled to do so for other more serious offences, such as those involving violence. The purpose of the review provisions in the Bill is to confer a right to request a review on interested parties and responsible authorities; it does not impose a statutory duty to do so. 
 If the amendment were accepted, although licensed premises at which fights regularly broke out might or might not be subject to review, the premises licence of a licensee who played one musical track to his customers for which he did not have the necessary permission would automatically be reviewed if the fact were made known to the police. I dare say that no one is more concerned about the theft of intellectual property that I am, but we have to put the matter in context. The Government take copyright infringement very seriously, and we have every sympathy with those affected by it. 
 Provided that the grounds for a review are relevant to the licensing objectives, are not frivolous, vexatious or repetitious, and are made by an interested party, the Bill does not restrict the range of concerns that may give rise to interested parties and responsible authorities applying for a review. A local cinema, for example, might make an application for licensed premises in the area, and might show films without having the necessary permission. 
 We have also reacted to industry concerns by amending the Bill to make certain offences under the 1988 Act relevant offences for the purposes of the Bill. Applicants for personal licences will be subject to review if they have committed any of those offences. That is an important modification. If an applicant has committed one of the offences, the licensing authority will be required to notify the chief officer of police. If he is satisfied that the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, he must issue an objection notice. That would lead to a hearing at which the licensing authority would decide whether to grant an application or to reject it, if it believed that that was necessary to promote the crime prevention objective. 
 A personal licence holder who committed a relevant offence could have their licence suspended or forfeited. The amendment that the Government made underlines how seriously we take the issue, and will ensure that those who wish to be personal licence holders under 
 the new regime will be subject to appropriate scrutiny. Also, my officials are in discussion with the trade associations in the creative industry sector that are particularly concerned about the issue, such as the Cinema Exhibitors Association. 
 I do not think that amendment No. 225 is necessary, given the amendment made by the Government, which made a number of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 offences relevant offences under the Bill. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing it.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. Perhaps he could enlighten the Committee by pointing out, without going through every detail, where in the Bill it says that on application for a personal licence, offences under the 1988 Act would have to be disclosed? That would be of help. If he cannot do that right away—

Kim Howells: It is in schedule 4.

Malcolm Moss: With all due respect, schedule 4 is quite large. Could we be told which line, please?

Kim Howells: Sorry, it is schedule 4, paragraph 12.

Malcolm Moss: That is still not terribly specific, but we will take the Minister's word that the provision is there. I am sure that it is. However, it would have been useful to have had the line reference as well.
 I take to heart the Minister's comment that if an applicant had a history of breaking the law in respect of copyright, that would be disclosed on a personal licence application. The police could then take action. I accept the Minister's argument that the wording of the amendment compels the police to ask for a review on the slightest hint that the law may have been broken. Obviously, that was not our intention—but I do not accept his analogy about regular fights in or outside a pub, and the police taking no action to initiate a review. That does not meet in any way the licensing objectives as set out in an earlier clause.

Nick Harvey: The Minister said that the infringement of copyright was a basis on which relevant parties could raise objections. Does he believe that those whose copyright has been infringed can make those objections, or will they have to persuade the police to do so because they come into the category of interested parties—and is that another way in which we ought to approach this subject?

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he asks whether these people would be included under the umbrella of interested parties, but that is a question for the Minister rather than for me.

Kim Howells: I am sure that all of us have had some experience of dealing with these matters—we have seen it time and again in our Department—for example, where an approach is made to the police to investigate an occurrence in which intellectual property is being abused or stolen in one way or another. The police are a responsible body, and they can make representations to the licensing authority.

Malcolm Moss: Again, that was a helpful contribution by the Minister. On balance, I take on board what he
 has said on this amendment—that what it addresses is covered in other aspects of the legislation. We are still awaiting the precise page and line numbers of the relevant schedule, but we are patient: he can introduce it at a later stage of the proceedings.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience. The relevant offences are listed in schedule 4, paragraph 12, and the requirement to disclose convictions is in clause 121.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 286, in
clause 51, page 31, line 12, after 'interval', insert 
 'but in any event not less than three years'.
 This is a probing amendment. Clause 51(5)(b) talks about ''a reasonable interval'' elapsing since an earlier application for review. We want to flesh out the Government's thinking about what is a reasonable time. The amendment adds; 
''in any event not less than three years''.
 We are putting a time scale on this. 
 It is reasonable that the review should not come back within that sort of period: otherwise, there will be a steady flow of potential complaints, particularly in certain instances. We can all think of pubs in residential areas that cause concern, and where that concern exists largely in the minds of local residents rather than because anything illegal is going on which might mean that there is any real basis for a withdrawal or revocation of that licence. 
 This is a probing amendment to find out what the Government think is a reasonable time: we think that three years is a reasonable period.

Mark Field: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who sits on the Front Bench. It is essential that a level of certainty is brought about in relation to the review of premises licences for one main reason, which applies not only to the owners of premises or the licensees but to local residents' groups and other interested parties. There needs to be that sense of certainty and the word ''reasonable'' is open to a wide range of interpretations. I am unsure whether the Department issued any clear guidelines as to what it considers to be a reasonable interval.
 Businesses are greatly concerned that there might be a level of uncertainty that means that they have no idea about how quickly they can reapply for an amendment to a licence—and that applies also to local residents and others who might have an interest. An inordinate amount of legal costs can be incurred and perhaps this is a charter for the licensing lawyers. The great concern is that residents, residents associations and local authorities will find themselves fighting a rearguard action. Given that we are going through the rigmarole of introducing new legislation, we should achieve certainty. 
 On an application for review, nothing is more depressing for Members of Parliament, or indeed for 
 local councillors, than feeling that a particular issue—be it a pub licence, a bar licence or any other licence covered by the Bill—is a running sore that is always in their postbag. As soon as a matter has been up for review, it will be argued that a reasonable interval has occurred, not least because the whole process may have been subject to appeal either in the courts or through various other sub-committees of the local authority under the current regime. It is essential that we get some guidance at this juncture. Given the importance of this Committee in guiding the courts, the Minister should give us an idea of what a reasonable interval would be.

Mark Hoban: In addition to the costs imposed on businesses, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, we also need to consider the costs that could be imposed on local authorities as a consequence of the range of interested parties who could call for a review. Clause 14 defines ''interested party'' as
''a person living in the vicinity of the premises, a body representing persons who live in that vicinity''
 or 
''a person involved in a business in that vicinity''.
 All of those interested parties could apply at different stages for a review on a range of different grounds. If they call for a review, local authorities, which may feel obliged to instruct solicitors, will incur costs. 
 Clause 51(3)(b) requires 
''the authority to advertise the application''
 and to consult with the premises licence holder and any corporate bodies owning the premises that are subject to the review. A host of costs could be incurred by a local authority as a consequence of applications for reviews. It is important to protect the interests of council tax payers, as well as those of the businesses concerned, by ensuring that there is certainty and that a sequence of reviews, which will incur costs, will not be initiated by interested parties. That links back to the issue of frivolous and vexatious applications. I do not know what provision there is for those who make that type of application to have to foot the cost of the reviews and any costs incurred by either the licensee or the local authority. It is important from all perspectives that the ''reasonable interval'' referred to in clause 51(5) should be more specific.

Kim Howells: As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, amendment No. 286 returns to the theme of balance that has characterised the debate on this Bill at all stages and in both Houses. The Bill seeks to balance a number of different, often competing, interests, including those of the industry, local residents and the consumer at large. I believe that the Bill gets the balance right, subject to some of the important changes that we have made following the debate and consultation with key partners.
 The system set out in the Bill for the review of existing premises licences is a critical element in that balance. It means that local residents will have a stronger voice than ever before in the licensing system. 
 They will be able to call for a review of any existing licence on a ground relevant to any of the licensing objectives. Clause 51 sets out the arrangements for applying for a review of a premises licence. 
 The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned that we have all experienced, as he put it, the ''running sore'' of a poorly managed house that generates constant complaints from local residents and local businesses, which is especially true in Soho. Since he said that, I have been trying to think of ones in my constituency, and I have suddenly realised that I do not have any such running sore—touch wood—so far. But the hon. Gentleman paints a very vivid picture. That can and does happen. 
 The review system is something of a balancing act. As I have said, we have given a stronger voice to local residents. By way of comment, that stronger position also extends to responsible authorities, which will also be able to seek a review of a licence. However, to protect legitimate, responsible and well-run businesses from individuals who may seek to use the powerful tools at their disposal in bad faith—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban)—the Bill introduces a number of important safeguards. 
 First and foremost, the grounds for an application for a review must be relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives. Among other things, that will make it more difficult for unscrupulous operators to make life hard for potential and actual competitors in the neighbourhood. We have not spoken much about that during our debates, but it can have a big effect. I have heard that where some of the more revolutionary of our pub chains have introduced very different kinds of premises into an area—often with good quality food, clear signage of the price of drinks and so on—objections have come not from local residents but from other pubs. They suddenly realise that they have a powerful competitor that is trying to improve the quality of their area, which means that they will have to invest in their own business. That is two edged. It pays tribute to the tremendous work of some responsible pub operators and chains and also says something about the less competitive performers in the field. We must ensure that such individuals do not prevent good investment in certain areas. 
 Where a representation is not made by a responsible authority, any ground for an application for a review may be rejected by the licensing authority if it is satisfied that it is frivolous or vexatious or if the ground is a repetition. I think that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Fareham. A review does not have to be granted just because an application takes place. A review will not have to take place because someone happens to make a vexatious complaint. That is not the case. 
 Subsection (5) states that a ground for a review is a repetition if it is a ground already considered as part of an application for a premises licence, if it was a ground for a previous review of a premises licence or if it is an excluded representation under clause 32; and, in all cases, 
''a reasonable interval has not elapsed since that earlier application for review or the grant of the licence''.
 The nub of the question, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire reminded us, is what constitutes a reasonable interval. The Bill's approach leaves that in the first instance to the discretion of the licensing authority. Amendment No. 286 would impose a minimum length of 3 years for that period. There are two related reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. First, different interest groups will have different interpretations of what might or might not constitute a reasonable interval. If we take that to extremes, some parts of the industry may want a long period to elapse before a ground may not be ruled out as a repetition. Indeed, they may want to exclude any representations made by local residents. That is understandable, given the usual commercial pressures, but it is unfair and not in the overall public interest of the new regime. On the other hand, some residents or their representatives or associations may regard it as unjust that any grounds should be ruled out because they are frivolous, vexatious or repetitious. That viewpoint was put plainly in another place. 
 Secondly, and more importantly, what constitutes a reasonable period will vary from one circumstance to another. If we set a minimum period in the Bill, I fear that we will expose ourselves to the risk of excluding perfectly legitimate grounds for review made by local residents under certain circumstances. 
 I shall consider some of the examples that were given by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He clearly explained how circumstances can change within a commercial part of a town or city where business is dynamic and its nature changes quickly. In three years, many changes can occur and if malign influences are at work, a lot of money can be made at the expense of the people who live there and businesses, including other licensed premises that might be operating in the area. Perhaps we will discuss that further later. I shall not go into special promotions for alcohol sales, but the situation can become difficult. 
 It is much better to retain flexibility in the Bill, and rely on licensing authorities to exercise discretion. Licensing authorities that reject grounds for a review must give the applicant reasons for that decision. An aggrieved applicant will have the right to challenge any such decision by way of a judicial review, as the matter, if disputed, will ultimately be for the courts. On that basis, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. Again, he is pleading for flexibility. However, if we accept that a time scale of any description will probably be inflexible, what is the point of including subsection 5(b) at all? Why have ''a reasonable interval'' if it means nothing? If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, premises can change quickly—circumstances can change at a given environment with a different licence holder within a short period of weeks or months—the idea of a reasonable interval goes out of the window. The fact that it was only a few months earlier that objections were raised and
 applications for review were made is irrelevant to the changed circumstances, so I cannot see the point of the reasonable interval.
 I do not dispute the fact that the scene can change rapidly, and we need to be flexible to deal with that. With my probing amendment, I simply wanted to get a sense of the Government's thinking on the subject, but the Minister has ended up arguing for removing subsection (5)(b) entirely. I cannot press that idea to a vote, because that is not my amendment, but his comments leave in question whether we need the definition of paragraph (b) at all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 - Determination of application for review

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 287, in
clause 52, page 31, leave out line 39.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 288, in
clause 52, page 31, line 40, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendment would remove subsection (4)(c).

Roger Gale: Order. I have just been told that we have a problem with the sound system, which means that Hansard is unable to take a correct record. I shall have to suspend the sitting briefly while the sound is sorted out.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Roger Gale: I apologise for the delay. I believe that the sound is back on and that we will not have to suspend again. For the benefit of all concerned, we should go back to the start of clause 52, if you do not mind, Mr. Moss. I am not sure how many of your pearls of wisdom made the record.

Malcolm Moss: I do not think that I had said anything. I had just got to my feet when you called time on events, Mr. Gale.
 Amendment No. 287 would remove subsection (4)(c). Subsection (4) lists the steps that the authority may take at the time of determining an application for review. We could not understand why the authority should be responsible for removing the designated premises supervisor. After all, it can take various measures under subsections (4)(a), (b), (d) and (e). It can modify the conditions of the licence, exclude a licensable activity, suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months or revoke it. Such onerous steps would have a significant impact on the business concerned. 
 It would seem logical in such circumstances for the premises licence holder to do something about the designated premises supervisor if activities were occurring under his or her supervision that led to problems and reviews. Therefore, it is logical that the owner of the business—the premises licence holder, in 
 particular—would do something about the designated premises supervisor who was in charge of the premises when the nefarious activities that led to the review occurred. The Bill should not include a power for the licensing authority to sack a designated premises supervisor, which is how we interpret the words in subsection (4)(c). 
 Amendment No. 288 would change the period in subsection (4)(d) from three to two months. Again, it is a probing amendment to get the Government's thinking on the matter. Why three months? It is an arbitrary period that may not strike the right balance. If a licence is to be suspended, the onus should be on the proprietor or the licence holder to get their act in order and continue trading at the earliest opportunity by facing up to the reasons for the review and accepting the strictures from the licensing authority or the police, as the case may be. They must ensure that changes are made so that the licence can continue. 
 In that context, we would have thought that two months would be more appropriate than three, so the suspension would be on a shorter time scale in order for the business to put right what it needs to and get up and running again. A suspension of three months or more would jeopardise a business in such a way that it could not continue at a later date. 
 I return to amendment No. 287, which is designed to question why the Government think it appropriate that a licensing authority at the end of a review—if it feels that certain actions need to be taken—can move in and sack a designated premises supervisor. After all, that person is appointed by the premises licence holder and not the authority in the first instance.

Kim Howells: This group of amendments concerns the steps that are available to the licensing authority after it has heard representations in a review hearing. Those steps may be taken if the authority considers them necessary for the promotion of licensing objectives. Their importance lies not only in the flexibility that they give to the licensing authority in dealing with a range of potential problems, but in their creation of a deterrent to those who operate problem premises, and especially those who fall just short of breaching conditions of their licences but fail to take remedial action to prevent emerging problems.
 Although the powers will be essential for bringing premises generating problems in the community back into line, they will also give the owners and operators of the business pause for thought. With changes in trading hours, suspension and revocation of the licence all in the frame, business operators will need to think carefully about a number of matters, including—dare I say—the training of the staff working at those premises. 
 Under the existing system, where a manager often held the justices' licence, it was often a question of the manager's licence being revoked, and a new manager being brought in to obtain a new licence. The business was rarely threatened by such decisions, and as a result, problems could and did fester. The new system offers real flexibility in how individual problems are handled, and it provides the ability for the outcome of the review to impact directly on the business. For example, a reduction in trading hours will hit its profits, and cannot be ignored lightly. 
 Most of the businesses in the scope of the Bill are excellent, are run professionally and enhance our constituents' leisure time and our national life. There are some premises that cause problems, and we have to provide a suitable means of putting pressure on them and allowing problems to be remedied. 
 Amendment No. 287 would remove from the licensing authority's arsenal the power to require the removal of the designated premises supervisor. The Committee has already enjoyed a lengthy, detailed debate about designated premises supervisors. We have made our position clear, and I do not intend to repeat it this morning. The amendment does not serve the interests of the licensing authority, the industry or the community. It reduces the licensing authority's flexibility where the problems emerging at review clearly focus on the actions of a particular manager rather than the business itself. If a change in the designated premises supervisor would solve the problems, why go further than that? From the industry's perspective, would it really want the licensing authority to consider suspension or revocation of the premises licence because the facility of requiring a change in the supervisor is not available? I cannot believe that the industry would be well served by such a measure. 
 Similarly, in the community, premises such as a local pub may be a much prized local facility that has begun to cause problems following the arrival of a new supervisor. People would not necessarily want the pub closed, even temporarily, but they may well want a new supervisor who will set the right standards. It should therefore be possible for the licensing authority to consider those matters. 
 Amendment No. 288 would reduce the period of potential suspension of a premises licence from three months to two months. We set the level of three months because we considered that any matter justifying the closure of a business for more than three months would probably justify revocation in any case. We recognise that closure for three months could come close to killing many businesses. There is no question about that. Businesses will be able to plead that point before the licensing authority. Suspension can be from one day to three months, and that provides the flexibility to deal with a great range of problems. 
 What does reducing the level from three months to two achieve? It certainly reduces the flexibility available to the licensing authority. There is, of course, nothing magical about the period of three months—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was quite right in that respect—but equally, there is nothing magical about two months.

Adrian Sanders: Will the Minister clarify that the suspension could last between one day and a maximum of three months and is not set at three months?

Kim Howells: Yes, I am absolutely clear on that point. The decision made by the licensing authority would be proportionate to what it considered to be the offences. Of course, many decisions are made in that way now, in many spheres of life. Such flexibility is very important.
 The key point is that suspension must act as a real deterrent to those who allow their businesses to drift into lower and lower professional standards that begin to impact on the community and the promotion of the licensing objectives. That is why I favour the higher and tougher level. I sincerely hope that it will have to be imposed rarely, if ever, but what matters is that it could be imposed and operators will know that. 
 Against that background, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not insist on the amendments.

Malcolm Moss: I am unconvinced by part of the Minister's explanation. I prefaced my remarks by saying that it was important that the licensing authority had powers to take action in instances in which reviews were upheld and there were real problems associated with particular premises. We have no problem with much of his argument that there should be recourse through the law for the licensing authority to take action against problem pubs and premises. However, I am still puzzled as to how a licensing authority will
''remove the designated premises supervisor''.
 Subsection (3) states: 
''The authority must, having regard to the application and any relevant representations, take such of the steps mentioned in subsection (4)''.
 Subsection (4)(b) mentions ''to exclude''. The licensing authority must take steps 
''to remove the designated premises supervisor''.
 I do not see how it can. It is not employing the designated premises supervisor. Does that person not have any rights? What could happen, and seems more sensible in my estimation, is that the licensing authority will say, ''There is a problem with these premises. We believe that the problem stems from poor management and supervision. That is where the problems lies—there is no dispute about that.'' The authority would surely say, ''Unless you take steps to change the supervision and the management of the premises, there will be a suspension or a revocation.'' That is the sensible way to go about it, rather than giving a local authority the power to walk into a pub and say to a person, ''On your bike. Out you go,'' which does not make any sense to me. What about the human rights of the individual concerned? Certainly make the case that it is supervision and management that is the problem, but to include in the Bill powers for a local authority to go in and sack someone seems to me quite inappropriate. The Minister did not really address that issue.

Kim Howells: The designated premises supervisor is not sacked by the action. He would not lose his personal licence and he could work elsewhere. I will come on to the hon. Gentleman's specific point. If a supervisor were convicted of offences by a court, he might well lose his licence, but the licensing authority could not take his personal licence away in those
 circumstances. Removal relates to the specification in the licence, not to that person's employment relationship. The hon. Gentleman will recall—I know that it seems like aeons ago now—that we had a long debate on that and on the specified name of the premises supervisor.

Malcolm Moss: Although I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which makes a little more sense, the words in the Bill do not say that. It would be helpful if the Government could table their own amendment on Report to make it quite clear that it is the removal of the name of the designated premises supervisor from the licence that is meant. That is what he has just said, and that makes some sense. The licensing authority cannot remove the person in situ. The idea that the chap who was the cause of the review of the premises licence in the first instance still has employment rights and could be employed somewhere else does not fill me with great confidence.
 Given the explanation that the Minister has given, I shall not press the amendments to a vote. Perhaps he will give some thought to making it quite clear what is meant by removal. It is removal only from the licensing certificate, not the effective removal of the person from the premises. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 53 and 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Fees

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 230, in
clause 55, page 33, line 5, leave out '(other than section 51)'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 130, in 
clause 55, page 33, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— 
 '(b) prescribe guidance for licensing authorities when setting the amount of the fee and what may be charged for under the fee.'.
 Amendment No. 226, in 
clause 55, page 33, line 7, at beginning insert 'subject to subsection (5)'.
 Amendment No. 227, in 
clause 55, page 33, line 11, at beginning insert 'subject to subsection (5)'.
 Amendment No. 132, in 
clause 55, page 33, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert— 
 '(4) If the annual fee is not paid by the prescribed time, the relevant premises licence will lapse on that date. 
 (5) If a licence lapses under the provisions of subsection (4), the former holder of that licence may for a period of three months, commencing on the date the licence lapsed, seek reinstatement of the licence. 
 (6) The applicant for reinstatement shall pay to the relevant licensing authority the annual fee together with such reasonable reinstatement fee fixed in advance by that licensing authority. 
 (7) The premises licence shall be deemed to have been reinstated as soon as the requisite fees have been received by the licensing authority.'.
 Amendment No. 228, in 
clause 55, page 33, line 14, at end insert— 
 '(5) Regulations made under this section may prescribe circumstances in which any fee payable by virtue of this section may be varied (up to such maximum level as may be prescribed) by a licensing authority in order to take into account the cost to that authority of processing licensing applications.'.
 Amendment No. 229, in 
clause 55, page 33, line 14, at end insert— 
 '( ) In regulations made under this section, the Secretary of State shall prescribe a nil fee to certain categories of premises which shall include— 
 (a) church halls, 
 (b) village halls, 
 (c) parish halls, 
 (d) community centres, and 
 (e) similar community buildings.'.
 Amendment No. 131, in 
clause 90, page 51, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— 
 '(b) prescribe guidance for licensing authorities when setting the amount of the fee and what may be charged for under the fee.'.
 Amendment No. 207, in 
clause 90, page 51, line 38, after 'fee', insert 
 'or maximum fee, and may prescribe different fees or maximum fees for different qualifying club activities'.
 Amendment No. 208, in 
clause 90, page 51, line 41, at end insert 
 'in respect of such qualifying club activity or activities as may be prescribed'.
 Amendment No. 209, in 
clause 90, page 52, line 3, after 'fee', insert 
 'or maximum fee, including provision for different fees or maximum fees for different qualifying club activities'.
 Amendment No. 133, in 
clause 90, page 52, line 5, leave out subsection (4) and insert— 
 '(4) If the annual fee is not paid by the prescribed time, the relevant club premises certificate will lapse on that date. 
 (5) If a certificate lapses under the provisions of subsection (4), the former holder of that certificate may for a period of three months, commencing on the date the licence lapsed, seek reinstatement of the certificate. 
 (6) The applicant for reinstatement shall pay to the relevant licensing authority the annual fee together with such reasonable reinstatement fee fixed in advance by that licensing authority. 
 (7) The club premises certificate shall be deemed to have been reinstated as soon as the requisite fees have been received by the licensing authority.'.
 Amendment No. 210, in 
clause 194, page 107, line 34, at end insert— 
 '(aa) regulations under section 90'.
 Amendment No. 211, in 
clause 194, page 108, line 3, after 'containing', insert 
 'regulations within subsection (3)(aa) or'.
 Given all of those, and the brevity of the clause, we had better treat this as a stand part debate as well.

Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 230 is a probing amendment, seeking clarification from the Minister on why all applications under the Bill require a fee except the review of the premises licence, which we covered under clause 51. Excluding that from fee
 charging makes it possible that interested parties might call for reviews of premises licences for any reason—although vexatious reasons are covered earlier in the Bill—whether valid or not, as there is no fee or cost for the people making the complaint. There is, of course, a cost to the licence holder or holders, whether of premises or personal licences, if such issues are raised. The whole matter seems to be weighted in one direction.
 We query the motives behind that exclusion, especially in the light of the need to fund reviews of premises licences from some source as yet unspecified. Do the Government envisage that those who instigate the review will meet the costs of carrying it out? If so, how will that be done? Perhaps an idea would be to put a charge on an application for a review but to refund that fee if the review leads to a successful conclusion and the complaint is upheld. 
 Amendments Nos. 226, 227 and 228 would introduce a new subsection (5), from which consequential amendments follow. 
 We remain unconvinced that the Government's assurances are enough to satisfy the worries of local authorities and licence holders about the regulation of fees. They claim that the system will be self-financing and that it will not burden licensees with excessive costs or leave local authorities with cost deficits for the administrative responsibilities of licensing. 
 Licensees fear a repeat of past experience when they paid fees, in some cases at ridiculous levels, to obtain public entertainment licences. They also have fears about the fairness of the proposed three-tier system and that local authorities will inherit a huge burden with massive financial consequences. The new computer systems will require new administration, additional working hours and other costs, which the licensing authorities will have to cover in their new role. Let us consider the consequential implications for the local authorities of street cleaning and transport systems. We know of the experiences of Soho and Westminster and are not convinced that such costs can be met by the Government's current proposals. 
 The self-financing scheme cannot succeed without a variation of the fees that are set, as suggested under amendment No. 228, with a maximum cap established to prevent undue costs from being recouped from the fees. As history has taught us, some local authorities have a fee structure for entertainment licences, which must make them a substantial profit. Naturally, we want to avoid that situation. 
 The situation, size and location of the premises should be taken into account when setting fees. For example, a venue in an urban area surrounded by several other licensed premises should pay a lower fee, owing to the fact that those premises also pay their contributions to the necessary costs. It is imperative that the system, as outlined in the draft guidance, is fair and workable for all parties and that the Government can ensure that a self-financing system will definitely work before they implement it. 
 Amendment No. 229 deals with those premises that will not be charged a fee. They will still have to make an application, but the Government have promised a nil fee. The amendment would insert such a proposal in the Bill, so that it makes it clear to all parties, especially those involved, that their applications will be received on a nil-fee basis. The new subsection would state: 
''In regulations made under this section, the Secretary of State shall prescribe a nil fee to certain categories of premises which shall include—
(a) church halls,
(b) village halls,
(c) parish halls,
(d) community centres, and
(e) similar community buildings.''
 There was much debate in the other place on the issue. In fact, the Government gained considerable ground by accepting the argument that such premises shall be subject to nil fees, when making applications. They promised that such matters will be dealt with in the guidance, rather than in the Bill. Nevertheless, in the interests of clarification and commitment, it is important that the nil-fee basis should be designated clearly and unequivocally and amendment No. 229 sets out to do that. 
 Amendments Nos. 207 to 209 apply to fees for clubs, which are dealt with in a different clause. It seems appropriate to deal with that matter while we are discussing fees. The Bill is inconsistent in its approach to club premises licences. For example, clause 1 stipulates that a club premises licence is necessary for both entertainment and alcohol. The exact wording in 1(1) is as follows: 
''For the purposes of the Act the following are licensable activities . . . the provision of . . . entertainment, and . . . the provision of late night refreshment.''
 In 1(2), both alcohol and entertainment are specified as qualifying club activities. On turning to clause 76, however, we see that qualifying club activities for which the premises might be used must be specified on the form of certificate. Clause 90 does not accommodate those various activities by prescribing different fees for them. There is therefore some concern, especially among small clubs, that one uniform fee will be imposed on all clubs, regardless of their activities, and that it would include the costs of fire and safety regulation checks, for example, and for the sound insulation necessary for an entertainment licence on top of the entertainment licence fee. The prescribed fee would be additional to the application fee and a possible annual fee. 
 Surely, such measures are not necessary for premises that are not used for entertainment as that is defined in the Bill and should therefore only be imposed on club premises where such activities are likely to take place. One such small club, from which I have had some representation, is Ramsgate croquet club—[Interruption.] There are lots of croquet, tennis and bowls clubs throughout the country; I happen to have been approached by that club, and it makes a strong argument. Ramsgate croquet club would not require the inclusion of entertainment in their premises 
 licence and would therefore be paying fees that were unrepresentative of its needs. It would be more reasonable if different fees were prescribed for different activities taking place on club premises. For example, if a club premises licence covered the sale of alcohol, not the provision of entertainment, the fee should be lower. That ought to be articulated in the Bill, so that specific provisions could be made for the benefit of the licensing authority and the clubs. By prescribing a maximum fee, clubs need not be charged for inapplicable administration fees and the licensing authorities will maintain the apparent flexibility afforded to them under other clauses.

Adrian Sanders: The amendments are helpful; they are clearly intended to seek transparency in fee making and to get some definition of what is intended, which I hope the Minister will be able to give us.
 The Minister gave me an assurance on fees at an earlier meeting, which was vitally important. The track record of some local authorities on fee setting is not good, certainly not in relation to public entertainment licences, which currently come under their remit. One local authority I know of has raised public entertainment fees from £200 to £2,000. Neither sum reflects the cost of granting licences. It is difficult for the Government to find a formula that enables local authorities to set a fee that matches their costs and there will need to be a great deal of consultation with local government to come up with the right levels of fees. 
 Amendment No. 229, which lists the premises to which nil fees will apply, is important, although the Government have already suggested that they want to exempt such properties. I am sure that we can all point to local examples of buildings such as community halls that have no other activities and are having problems keeping going. The requirement to pay a fee may well be what closes them. Then, there are other community halls—I know of one in my constituency—that have a bar and generate a great deal of income. Although the bar is only a part of the community centre, activities that take place in other parts of that centre may be directly related to the commercial activities of the bar. Distinguishing between the two will be difficult, and I imagine that it will be left up to officers of local authorities to determine which parts of the premises should have a fee attached. 
 Clubs, which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire mentioned, involve another set of complications. There are many small sports enterprises in my constituency; there are more bowling clubs than we can shake a stick at. Many of those clubs have bars and activities and some of those activities are held on behalf of other organisations. Sports clubs are good at holding charitable activities for other organisations. They have coffee mornings or wine and cheese evenings that generate profit for charity and not necessarily for the clubs. 
 It is crucial that we set the right climate of fees, to respect the variety of activities held in the clubs. It would be a tragedy if the Bill caused problems for such clubs and societies and if it meant that they had to disengage from some of their philanthropic activities, or if the imposition of fees affected the viability of 
 their activities. This is an important group of amendments that I hope will bring about transparency, so that it is obvious where fees are being directed. I hope that the amendments will also provide some definition as to what types of premises and activities we are talking about. 
Mr. Field rose—

Roger Gale: I apologise, Mr. Field, because I should have called you first to speak to amendment No. 130, which stands in your name.

Mark Field: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I wish to concentrate on amendments Nos. 130 and 132, which are both in my name. I shall not mention any croquet clubs. Ramsgate—which, of course, is just outside your constituency, Mr. Gale—has been mentioned; you, no doubt, are the life president of the Margate croquet club, for your sins.

Roger Gale: Order. I do not recall that that is one of my declared interests.

Kim Howells: Put the record straight.

Mark Field: Yes, I am glad that the record has been put entirely straight on that point. It is just as well that Hansard's sound system is now working. We hope it is, anyway.
 Much earlier in our deliberations, back in early April, the hon. Member for North Durham raised the costs of public entertainment licences in the city of Westminster and wondered whether all of the licence fee was put into enforcement. I have been able to conduct a certain amount of research into Westminster and the neighbouring borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the authority on which I sat as a local councillor for some eight years until 2002. I am acutely aware when discussing issues affecting central London that many Committee members are probably concerned that we should not forget that the country does not begin and end here in central London—although I would not necessarily support that contention. 
 My main concern with the Bill is that it is centralising in its authority. There is not the flexibility to take account of the fact that, without doubt, areas such as Soho and Covent Garden are sui generis in so far as two areas can be. The regime for central London should be considered differently from how the regime is considered elsewhere. Problems might arise from a set and centralised scheme for licensing and fees. 
 The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said that some of the fee income of Westminster city council is disproportionate to the costs of administration and enforcement. The implied conclusion was that Westminster was making a surplus income from the public entertainment licensing regime. Nothing could be further from the truth. I apologise in advance for boring the Committee with statistics that apply to a relatively small number of authorities—none the less, they make the point that we should not be overly prescriptive. 
 There are about 372 public entertainment licences in Westminster as a whole, two thirds of which are issued at a cost of £2,188 or less. About 31 per cent. of those PELs cost only £1,067 or less and only four venues in Westminster out of the 372 premises pay in excess of £20,000 for their PEL; we could all play a parlour game of guessing which they are, but I shall tell Committee members that they are the Royal Lancaster hotel, Westminster Central hall, the Hilton Metropole hotel and the Royal Albert hall. All those venues have extremely large capacities, and a frequency and variety of events that require robust enforcement. The notion that a set fee ceiling of about £2,000 or £3,000 would cover their costs flies in the face of fact. For instance, last year the Royal Albert hall paid the highest public entertainment licence fee of some £31,000, but for next year the licensing sub-committee of Westminster city council has reduced that to £18,000, having received various representations. 
 The Royal Albert hall has a capacity of 5,200, in excess of 1 million attendees to events annually and each year hosts 320 to 330 different events—almost one event per day on average. To ensure public safety, this world-renowned venue requires engineers from Westminster city council and licensing officers to visit at least weekly because of significant changes to scenery, stage and seating. Each visit usually requires a full day of officers' time, including at least four hours on site. 
 I have Westminster's statistics for the financial year just ended, on 5 April. It anticipates that public entertainment licences will provide a fee income of about £1,473,800 with expenditure of £1,794,300; in other words, there will be an operating loss of in excess of £300,000. The levels of fees are determined at present by a relatively straightforward formula that takes into account the capacity of the venue and the terminal hour. 
 The same sort of regime applies in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and similar statistics exist. The income fees of the tax year 2001–02 brought in £353,800, with expenditure of £376,000, so the deficit was in excess of £20,000. That local authority provided me with copious details to make it clear that the great costs incurred in officer time mean that although the fee regime might appear extremely generous compared with many other local authorities, it is not. 
 I hope that the Minister will give some thought to the amendment. Perhaps we will have to return on Report to whether we have the right mechanism for certain London authorities. That applies equally to Conservative authorities as to the stress areas of Camden, which also includes part of central London, and to a number of other London authorities that have real and distinct problems that are different from those envisaged under clause 55 in trying to introduce a fair and reasonable fee regime. 
 The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has said on numerous occasions that it will ensure that the centrally set application fee and an annual fee will cover all associated costs. That is a welcome assurance, but the Department must also recognise that there are 
 distinct problems in certain parts of the country. It is hard to envisage how the DCMS will come up with a ''one size fits all'' fee that does not involve local authorities making a loss or a profit. 
 Amendment No. 130 would still impose statutory regulations on fee setting so that there is certainty for business and to ensure that there is no suggestion of wild profits being made by a local authority, but it would also tightly control what may be charged for under the fee and how it should be calculated. Within those guidelines, local authorities will be able to set their own fee in consultation with licensees, residents and businesses. We hope that the outcome would be—to use a slightly vulgar phrase—a ''win, win, win'' scenario for licensees, residents and local authorities alike. 
 The rationale behind the amendment is straightforward and it was discussed in detail in another place. In Committee in the other place, Baroness Blackstone said that the Department was considering introducing a separate fee band for London and the south-east because of higher costs. That would be a step in the right direction, but that alone would not guarantee a fair licensing fee for local authorities and the licensees because there are several factors in determining licensing costs that can be determined only through self-determination—rather than by a regional-type scheme. 
 The two biggest factors are wage costs and travel expenses. Wage costs have an impact on every part of the application process, from policy development to inspections to enforcement and the actual process of applications. London weighting is an obvious example. There is a concern that if the Department calculated an average wage cost for the whole of England and Wales, London boroughs and metropolitan councils would lose money and rural councils with much lower wage costs would be able to make money. 
 On expenses, we accept that in more rural districts, where licensed premises are spread over a wide area, travel costs associated with inspection and enforcement will be far greater than they will be for inner city boroughs. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Department to give a petrol allowance as part of the fee because many urban local authorities do not use such vehicles to get around. 
 There must be a sense of balance and there is a worry that a ''one size fits all'' approach would not produce the right result.

Adrian Sanders: Economies of scale is another factor. For an authority that has a large number of premises, there are costs that can come down per application, but for an authority with few such premises the costs will be greater. I am arguing against my authority having more money, but that is part of the formula.

Mark Field: That is a fair point. The Minister touched on it earlier. The level of expertise for a number of London authorities means that there is an opportunity for them to reduce some of the cost base simply because of the volume of applications being made.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dispelling the myth that Westminster city council is efficient and well run and that the taxpayers are subsidising the entertainment industry.
 Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, if there are a large number of entertainment venues in a small city area, managing them and travelling between them is a lot easier than dealing with licensed premises in a large rural county such as Durham where large distances have to be covered and lots of different types of licences have to be dealt with?

Mark Field: I accept that. I will let the hon. Gentleman's initial comments pass by, although I fear that they are now on the record. I agree with the notion that a ''one size fits all'' scheme will lead to injustices on either side of the balance. It is fair to say that many local authorities operate their licensing regime at a loss rather than regarding it as a money-spinner. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and some groups in the licensing trade believe that local authorities are making vast profits from the regime and no doubt use it as part and parcel of their lobbying schemes.
 Baroness Blackstone said in another place that local authorities had had their chance to set fees, and in her view they had failed. As a result, the Government believe that they are justified in opposing a nationally set fee. It is widely acknowledged that a small minority of local authorities make some profit from the licensing fee, but most local councils operate at a huge loss, and will continue to do so on a much greater scale if there is a one-off fee of either £100 or up to £500, as stated in the regulatory impact assessment. 
 Many local authorities have struggled to estimate the true extent of the proposed change to the licensing regime, so I am reluctant to provide a projected figure, because it would be difficult to realise the size of the loss that would result. It would be invidious simply to multiply by £100 or £500 each of the licences that are now set at significantly higher levels. We have received little direction from the guidance so far, and local authorities have to rely on an assumption based on the experience and the expectation of their staff. 
 Enough evidence is emerging to highlight the worries of local authorities with a significant number of established licensed premises. Indeed, a fee case study covering Westminster and Camden—both sides of the political divide—was taken into account. Camden council considered that as councils take over responsibility for alcohol licensing under the new regime, there will be an associated increase in administrative costs for the processing of applications and conducting licensing meetings. That change will see Camden's licensing responsibility increase from about 175 premises, which include night cafes and other entertainment premises, to about 1,500 premises when all those with liquor licences are included. The council says that the guidance framework for the Bill notes that the Government's expectation that local authorities will receive a considerable income during the transition period may not come to pass, because that expectation is based on the fee income expected as existing premises transfer their licences to the regime. 
 Under the regulatory impact assessment, all licensed premises will be required to pay a one-off fee of between £100 and £500 during the transfer from the old licensing system to the new regime. 
 In the absence of any other direction when trying to work out its finances, Camden inevitably tended to consider the mid point in the range of fees—about £300. Given its new responsibilities, it reckons that it can expect revenue of £450,000 a year. It feels that the inadequacy of such fees is exposed by the fact that the current licensing regime in Camden, under which 300 licences—not 1,500—are processed annually, is already averaging £500,000. Some real problems lie ahead for several London authorities. 
 Westminster City council has built up a cost model to assist in preparing and planning for the enforcement work resulting from the Bill and its associated guidance. It has systematically identified the costs for a proactive inspection regime for each of the different types of premises, based on the number of premises and the frequency of existing visits for non-licensing purposes, as well as the other routine visits required. That is notwithstanding the point that the Minister and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) made about the fact that many premises are close to each other, so there should be an opportunity to make certain savings. It is, however, felt that under the new regime the total enforcement costs in Westminster may be as much as £2.5 million. 
 Time is moving on and we have little more than 10 minutes to go, so I shall touch only briefly on amendment No. 132, the substance of which was tabled in another place by my parliamentary predecessor, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. Clause 55(4) says: 
''Any fee which is owed to a licensing authority under subsection (2) may be recovered as a debt due to the authority.''
 Local authorities are concerned about the huge cost and time implications of the proposed legislation. The law currently states that if someone does not pay the public entertainment licence fee before the licence expiry date—usually within 12 months—the licence will lapse until the operator pays the fee. The Government propose that the local authority will be able to chase up fees for licensable activity, not just for entertainment licences. That will, in the minds of many local authorities in London, cause significant problems. That is one of the reasons why we want to insert new subsections (4), (5) and (6); that would clarify the situation where there has been a problem with non-payment. 
 Thank you for allowing me to go into some detail, Mr. Gale. I am sorry that we will not be able to have a full debate on all the matters covered by the amendments, but I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us to a certain degree. Of course, we may return to the subject on Report.

Andrew Turner: I recognise that time is running on, but I would like to contribute to the debate.
 The Government will get themselves into a hopeless hole on this matter. There are so many arguments on either side—for example, that the local authority monopoly could be abused, and also that different circumstances apply to different local authorities, an idea that my hon. Friend has put forward effectively. I shall illustrate those further by referring to a letter that I received from my local authority, which says that at the moment it more or less covers its costs—although I do not believe that it licenses anything like the number of things the Minister thinks it should, such as morris dancing in pub car parks. My local authority tells me that it makes a loss of £10,000 to £15,000 a year. It says that, for example, on one event—the Seaclose pop festival, which took place last year—the fee payable will be reduced from £8,000 to £500. 
 In order to set at rest local authorities' fears and concerns, it would be far better for the Government to allow local authorities more discretion than is proposed at present.

Kim Howells: In the little time left in this important debate, I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been asked.
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked about street cleaning costs and how they would be factored into the scheme of things. The fees and charges made under the Bill will recover the costs of administrative inspection and enforcement of the licensing regime; it will not and should not recover the costs of other matters, such as street cleaning, which are paid for through other forms of taxation by both businesses and consumers. 
 As for Ramsgate croquet club, fee levels and the location and size of businesses, we are discussing with all stakeholders how fees should be set to reflect the size and location of businesses. Rateable value includes both elements, and that is one possible basis for allocating businesses to bands of fees to be set out in statutory instruments.

Malcolm Moss: I do not believe that Ramsgate croquet club—or any other small club—is a business; it is a small club formed for the enjoyment of a small number of people.

Kim Howells: I hope that the answer I gave clarified the Government's position on that subject.
 The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked about the number activities taking place and the possibility of different fees being charged. To base the fee on the number of activities conducted on any premises makes no sense. The main cost of enforcement and inspection relates, as he pointed out, to labour costs and visits in connection with licensing. They will not necessarily vary because of the wide variety of activities that may take place on the premises; it is the labour costs and the visits that count. Clause 194 allows different provisions to be made for different purposes, and allows us to make provisions generally or in relation to specific cases. 
 The hon. Member for Torbay asked about local sports clubs. He will know, I am sure, that the Central Council of Physical Recreation has made 
 representations in favour of an exemption for local sports clubs. The Government are considering those representations at the moment. Hon. Members may be aware of the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has done to make the benefits of charitable status more easily available to local sports clubs, and his work with the Treasury on the tax benefit package introduced in the Finance Act 2002. 
 The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster raised the issue of capacity levels. I was fascinated by what he said, and I am grateful to him for his efforts to give us some notion of the range of fees in one constituency. However, I do not understand why a capacity of 1,000 should give rise to licensing costs different from those involved when the capacity is, say, 2,000. Are more visits involved for the latter, and is more time spent on those premises? The case may be slightly different for somewhere as large as the Royal Albert hall, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but generally large venues, such as theatres of about the same size, will not involve that many administrative differences, and therefore not such high costs.

Mark Field: What I was saying about the Royal Albert hall would, I suspect, apply to a number of similar premises in which many concerts take place, and there are many changes to the stage and scenery. Clearly, there would need to be plenty of regular visits in such a case. The capacity—between 1,000 and 2,000 or 3,000—may also reflect the sheer variety of events that take place, and frequent visits might be required to take account of new arrangements, and to ensure that health and safety aspects were taken properly into account, along with basic licensing matters.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. He has made clear his reservations—and, I assume, those of his local authority.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: May I make a little progress?
 We are still discussing the exact level of fees with local authorities. I hope that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will draw some comfort from that. The intention is that fees will be set in bands, based on the size and location of the venues—and, in some circumstances, on how busy they are. My noble Friend Baroness Blackstone did not say in the other place that a special fee would be set for London and the south-east. She said that we would consider how a geographical element might be 
 included. That is being considered, but using rateable value as an indicator may serve that purpose. 
 As for fees and costs in the transitional period, Camden would indeed have an income of around £450,000 from premises during that period, but it would have no enforcement costs during the year to 18 months or so of transition. It would have an income of at least another £45,000 in respect of personal licences during the transition—that is £5,000 less than the £500,000 estimate made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. 
Mr. Field rose—

Kim Howells: I will not give way again, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
 I hope that after those reassurances, the amendments will not be pressed. If they are, it will send a strong signal that Opposition Members are willing to damage the livelihoods of some of the lowest paid employees in our economy just to save a few coppers for the local authority.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister was doing all right until that last specious, throwaway comment on the politics of the issue. As he rightly said, the Government are still discussing the local authorities' fee structure. What he did not say, but we have been told, is that considerable problems and difficulties have still not been ironed out. I would have thought that it was still nearly impossible to get general agreement because of the conflicting needs and requirements across local authorities, and because of geographical circumstances. We wish the Government speed in coming to a conclusion on the subject, but we recognise that that will be difficult.
 It is true that there needs to be flexibility— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [1 and 3 April 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clauses 55 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.